Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Occupy Wall Street] For Fun and Profit

Posts

Interestingly you're sort of providing the reasons why things have gone to shit.

Please explain. I know it is the internet and you can hear my tone, but I would like to hear your opinion on this issue.

It's that whether they made bad bets or not, they will never pay for them. Everyone else will, sure but the people who are supposed to be taking the "risk of investment" are just too big to fail! In a perfect world where everyone was honest and reasonable, this wouldn't be an issue.

But it's not a perfect world and people are greedy as fuck.

Edit: Silly broken quotes.

So are we only pissed at GLOBAL BANKS or everyone who lends capital at interest? The way you stated it earlier I thought you meant everyone who lent money at interest. I agree we should break up the global banks. They are a drain on the capitalistic system.

Lending is healthy.

Lending at an expected loss and still turning it to profit for a few while molesting thousands of other people financially is not.

I don't think we disagree so much as have different expectations.

I think pharmaceutical companies are an example. They invest in research to make drugs that will make money. In some cases whether the drug is safe or not, they still want to make the money and are willing to push the envelope when it comes to acceptable side effects. We tend to review stuff drug companies say very carefully now. Big lenders and investment banks don't have the same degree of oversight and really since the side effect is financial ruin sometimes instead of death, it somehow escapes notice.

Edit:

"I have a lot of money and want more." isn't a sound business plan, but somehow the super-rich make it work.

The other side of the token of someone providing you $10 and wanting $15 later, is another guy who has $10 and is being paid $5 via interest to consume less now and more later. So that you have (1) actual real resources to use now and (2) someone to buy the products of your investment later.

Also, isn't how he got that ten dollars in the first place of some importance? I mean if he inherited it, he can literally benefit of other people by doing absolutely nothing, simply because he has financial control over them.

In every society a individual has a role to play. If the person does well in that role he should have a chance to advance, but if he does poorly he should have a chance to fail. I have no problems with the capitalistic system, I do have a problem with crony capitalism.

On CasedOut's presentation of the labour theory of value, I'm going to reproduce Joan Robinson:

To take an example – the idea that constant capital is an embodiment of labour power expended in the past. [...] I say ... : ‘Naturally – what else did you think it could be?’

The LTV implies less than you might think it does; you have to draw your arguments for progressive taxation elsewhere (and bluntly there are plenty). There is no need to resort to invocations of the LTV, particularly if they are weak:

Here is another example I like to use. Lets say I own a piece of land in the middle of nowehere that I do absolutely nothing to. Over the years highways are built up around it, commercial property is built up around it, a housing development is built nearby. All of a sudden the value of that property has skyrocketed. Now who created that value? Surely the owner did not. All of the people building the highway and the houses and the shopping centers nearby did. But since I own the property, I realize all of that socially created value. I am not making a value judgement for the time being on this, I am simply saying this is what happens.

Yes, it is what happens; we call these externalities. The insight that the gains to commercial investment are not wholly captured by investors is not new nor really in conflict with establishment views on economic justice, I'm afraid...

Note that, by the same token, the property owner realizes socially created losses. If commercial property is built around it and then a financial crisis causes a recession, and the property owner now finds himself owning an isolated plot of land surrounded by abandoned half-completed construction sites, will you correspondingly argue that other people should be taxed to compensate the owner for any losses?

The other side of the token of someone providing you $10 and wanting $15 later, is another guy who has $10 and is being paid $5 via interest to consume less now and more later. So that you have (1) actual real resources to use now and (2) someone to buy the products of your investment later.

Also, I think natural resources should be equally owned by all. Otherwise you are essentially flying in the face of natural propety law as proposed by John Locke in my opinion, which I think is still valid.

The other side of the token of someone providing you $10 and wanting $15 later, is another guy who has $10 and is being paid $5 via interest to consume less now and more later. So that you have (1) actual real resources to use now and (2) someone to buy the products of your investment later.

Also, I think natural resources should be equally owned by all. Otherwise you are essentially flying in the face of natural propety law as proposed by John Locke in my opinion, which I think is still valid.

Less the costs of discovery, I presume...?

You could add land value taxation to the pot of revenue sources as well.

On CasedOut's presentation of the labour theory of value, I'm going to reproduce Joan Robinson:

To take an example – the idea that constant capital is an embodiment of labour power expended in the past. [...] I say ... : ‘Naturally – what else did you think it could be?’

The LTV implies less than you might think it does; you have to draw your arguments for progressive taxation elsewhere (and bluntly there are plenty). There is no need to resort to invocations of the LTV, particularly if they are weak:

Here is another example I like to use. Lets say I own a piece of land in the middle of nowehere that I do absolutely nothing to. Over the years highways are built up around it, commercial property is built up around it, a housing development is built nearby. All of a sudden the value of that property has skyrocketed. Now who created that value? Surely the owner did not. All of the people building the highway and the houses and the shopping centers nearby did. But since I own the property, I realize all of that socially created value. I am not making a value judgement for the time being on this, I am simply saying this is what happens.

Yes, it is what happens; we call these externalities. The insight that the gains to commercial investment are not wholly captured by investors is not new nor really in conflict with establishment views on economic justice, I'm afraid...

Note that, by the same token, the property owner realizes socially created losses. If commercial property is built around it and then a financial crisis causes a recession, and the property owner now finds himself owning an isolated plot of land surrounded by abandoned half-completed construction sites, will you correspondingly argue that other people should be taxed to compensate the owner for any losses?

I am still not sure how LTV is a weak argument for progressive taxation? Could you elaborate please I do not think I am following.

How do you determine how much labor is justly worth? I mean labor markets to me seem unfair. Could you elaborate on that topic?

Also why should we not try to fairly incorporate externalities? I mean we already do this to some extent with environmental externalities. How can we determine that people are responsible for some externalities but not others? It seems like a schism in economic justice to me.

Also if you are too busy, could you point me to some theories of economic justice? Perhaps reccomend some books to read. I am really interested in the topic and as you can tell I have a novice understanding of it.

The other side of the token of someone providing you $10 and wanting $15 later, is another guy who has $10 and is being paid $5 via interest to consume less now and more later. So that you have (1) actual real resources to use now and (2) someone to buy the products of your investment later.

Also, I think natural resources should be equally owned by all. Otherwise you are essentially flying in the face of natural propety law as proposed by John Locke in my opinion, which I think is still valid.

Less the costs of discovery, I presume...?

You could add land value taxation to the pot of revenue sources as well.

The companies would still need to make a profit, so if the tax is to high they will 1. not drill or 2. Pass the cost onto the market if it would bear the extra cost increase.

The problem occurs when we apply this idea to the oil sector. Many people in the country can't afford not to buy oil-based fuel. This new tax would be a direct tax on people who have no option but to pay the tax. This takes their ability to buy other items. This is bad for the overall economy.

I would be in favor of something like this if we were not so dependent on the internal combustion engine.

This whole argument that 100k is less in the city is stupid for one reason: you're still making 100k. So you spend more on housing. With that kind of cash, you could easily afford to live in a good neighborhood with a nice apartment without even batting an eye.

Want to know how much it costs to ride the subway as much as you want for a month? $104 fucking dollars. I bet some people who live out in the sticks are putting more into their cars each month between gas and insurance.

I'm so glad I didn't donate to this year's fundraising drive for WNYC. This whole situation is absurd. I think the manager should have told her it's bad journalism to pitch a story that is so closely tied a her personal involvement in it, but firing her? That's crazy. Maybe I'll write them a letter about how they've lost me as a contributor.

As to your argument that the owner deserves more because they are increasing the productivity of the land, again I would argue that the owner wasn't the one who is increasing the productivity ultimately. He is still using the labor from all the people involved in tractor building, past and present, to increase the productivity of the land. The owner is benefitting from societies improvements in land use. Does the owner play a role in facilitating the increased production of the land? Absolutely. But look at it this way, if the guy working the land all of a sudden stopped. The production value would be ZERO.

Also untrue - the owner can themselves be a worker. The addition of a "Worker" (additional labor) opens up opportunities for the Owner to spend their time doing other things which have value . Now, the laborer can certainly claim part of that value within the negotiations, as their contribution is what allows those opportunities to be exploited, but it's typically implicit rather than explicit. And it's still typically the Owner that creates the majority of the productivity, as the marginal value of an additional Worker (labor input) is typically small by comparison to the marginal value of PP&E.

As a counter to your illustration, imagine two people working a communal piece of land - one who owns a tractor and one who doesn't. The handtools person can generate $20 worth of crops, the tractor person can generate $100 worth of crops. The tractor owner says "I'd rather spend the day at the beach - I'll lend you my tractor and we can split the crops 50/50". The handtools person gets $50 - more than twice what they would otherwise have generated. The tractor owner gets $50, less than what they would have otherwise generated, but also gets a day at the beach which may be worth far more to them than the lost revenue. And even though the tractor owner went to the beach and had no labor input, they still contributed $80 worth of productivity to the day's revenues.

The marginal value of PP&E being greater than the marginal value of labor doesn't hold true for all cases, but similarly the argument "I put in the labor, therefore I deserve the wealth created" and the converse "If you don't put in the labor, you don't deserve the wealth created" don't hold true for most cases either.

As to your argument that the owner deserves more because they are increasing the productivity of the land, again I would argue that the owner wasn't the one who is increasing the productivity ultimately. He is still using the labor from all the people involved in tractor building, past and present, to increase the productivity of the land. The owner is benefitting from societies improvements in land use. Does the owner play a role in facilitating the increased production of the land? Absolutely. But look at it this way, if the guy working the land all of a sudden stopped. The production value would be ZERO.

Also untrue - the owner can themselves be a worker. The addition of a "Worker" (additional labor) opens up opportunities for the Owner to spend their time doing other things which have value . Now, the laborer can certainly claim part of that value within the negotiations, as their contribution is what allows those opportunities to be exploited, but it's typically implicit rather than explicit. And it's still typically the Owner that creates the majority of the productivity, as the marginal value of an additional Worker (labor input) is typically small by comparison to the marginal value of PP&E.

As a counter to your illustration, imagine two people working a communal piece of land - one who owns a tractor and one who doesn't. The handtools person can generate $20 worth of crops, the tractor person can generate $100 worth of crops. The tractor owner says "I'd rather spend the day at the beach - I'll lend you my tractor and we can split the crops 50/50". The handtools person gets $50 - more than twice what they would otherwise have generated. The tractor owner gets $50, less than what they would have otherwise generated, but also gets a day at the beach which may be worth far more to them than the lost revenue. And even though the tractor owner went to the beach and had no labor input, they still contributed $80 worth of productivity to the day's revenues.

The marginal value of PP&E being greater than the marginal value of labor doesn't hold true for all cases, but similarly the argument "I put in the labor, therefore I deserve the wealth created" and the converse "If you don't put in the labor, you don't deserve the wealth created" don't hold true for most cases either.

I don't see how your example highlights the fairness of the situation. If anything it just shows me how incredibly unfair it is. Do you really think it is fair that the one farmer gets to chill at the beach all day and do nothing simply because he owned a tractor? I do not find that fair AT ALL.

As to your argument that the owner deserves more because they are increasing the productivity of the land, again I would argue that the owner wasn't the one who is increasing the productivity ultimately. He is still using the labor from all the people involved in tractor building, past and present, to increase the productivity of the land. The owner is benefitting from societies improvements in land use. Does the owner play a role in facilitating the increased production of the land? Absolutely. But look at it this way, if the guy working the land all of a sudden stopped. The production value would be ZERO.

Also untrue - the owner can themselves be a worker. The addition of a "Worker" (additional labor) opens up opportunities for the Owner to spend their time doing other things which have value . Now, the laborer can certainly claim part of that value within the negotiations, as their contribution is what allows those opportunities to be exploited, but it's typically implicit rather than explicit. And it's still typically the Owner that creates the majority of the productivity, as the marginal value of an additional Worker (labor input) is typically small by comparison to the marginal value of PP&E.

As a counter to your illustration, imagine two people working a communal piece of land - one who owns a tractor and one who doesn't. The handtools person can generate $20 worth of crops, the tractor person can generate $100 worth of crops. The tractor owner says "I'd rather spend the day at the beach - I'll lend you my tractor and we can split the crops 50/50". The handtools person gets $50 - more than twice what they would otherwise have generated. The tractor owner gets $50, less than what they would have otherwise generated, but also gets a day at the beach which may be worth far more to them than the lost revenue. And even though the tractor owner went to the beach and had no labor input, they still contributed $80 worth of productivity to the day's revenues.

The marginal value of PP&E being greater than the marginal value of labor doesn't hold true for all cases, but similarly the argument "I put in the labor, therefore I deserve the wealth created" and the converse "If you don't put in the labor, you don't deserve the wealth created" don't hold true for most cases either.

So by being wealthy (owning the tractor) he got to do less and make decent money anyway and go to the beach? (this is a joke, do not think I am serious)

That's all fine and good, reasonable capitalism. It's just a little utopian, and not at all what people are angry with right now.

You would have to come up with some sort of example where the guy with the tractor had it left to him in an estate, and by somehow leveraging his field and tractor managed to grow agent orange and destroy all other land of worth in a large radius, and then make a profit for having the only farm in the area, while everyone who used to own land gets to work for him and make dogshit. All while not breaking any current laws.

This whole argument that 100k is less in the city is stupid for one reason: you're still making 100k. So you spend more on housing. With that kind of cash, you could easily afford to live in a good neighborhood with a nice apartment without even batting an eye.

Want to know how much it costs to ride the subway as much as you want for a month? $104 fucking dollars. I bet some people who live out in the sticks are putting more into their cars each month between gas and insurance.

Not to get too picky, but in the past Week there ave been stabbings, a chase bank robbery, multiple store robberies, teenage gangs takings hundreds of dollars forcibly from people on the streets, a mugging at gunpoint, two carjackings and a bunch of other stuff in your neighborhood.

The marginal value of PP&E being greater than the marginal value of labor doesn't hold true for all cases, but similarly the argument "I put in the labor, therefore I deserve the wealth created" and the converse "If you don't put in the labor, you don't deserve the wealth created" don't hold true for most cases either.

The thing about our traditional capital side relationship is that it requires some level of ignorance from workers and general society about the way things work. There has to be a level of mystification about the people involved, as society must consider the powers that be to be somehow exceptional men to entrust them with such control over people's lives.

The internet is kind of fucking that up. A significant portion of the population has the education to realize that a lot of people in positions of high power are either morons or working toward an agenda totally at odds with the citizens' interests. That's eroding trust in the social and legal systems that allow the economy to exist.

Henry Ford said that people would revolt tomorrow if they understood how banks worked. We live in an age where people can, in a long evening on their phone, either learn exactly how banking works or learn some fascinating conspiracy theories about how bankers steal their precious fluids.

It's what happened in the Middle East. A significant number of the population had access to enough information about the world and methods to communicate with each other to say "This is bullshit!" to people who agree. That eventually coalesced into a real political movement.

The internet's going to be a major politically disruptive force. It's no shock that the ground's getting easy as the most connected generation in history comes of age, these young people start political movements.

The marginal value of PP&E being greater than the marginal value of labor doesn't hold true for all cases, but similarly the argument "I put in the labor, therefore I deserve the wealth created" and the converse "If you don't put in the labor, you don't deserve the wealth created" don't hold true for most cases either.

The thing about our traditional capital side relationship is that it requires some level of ignorance from workers and general society about the way things work. There has to be a level of mystification about the people involved, as society must consider the powers that be to be somehow exceptional men to entrust them with such control over people's lives.

The internet is kind of fucking that up. A significant portion of the population has the education to realize that a lot of people in positions of high power are either morons or working toward an agenda totally at odds with the citizens' interests. That's eroding trust in the social and legal systems that allow the economy to exist.

Henry Ford said that people would revolt tomorrow if they understood how banks worked. We live in an age where people can, in a long evening on their phone, either learn exactly how banking works or learn some fascinating conspiracy theories about how bankers steal their precious fluids.

It's what happened in the Middle East. A significant number of the population had access to enough information about the world and methods to communicate with each other to say "This is bullshit!" to people who agree. That eventually coalesced into a real political movement.

The internet's going to be a major politically disruptive force. It's no shock that the ground's getting easy as the most connected generation in history comes of age, these young people start political movements.

I believe this is true, and politicians and nations who do not understand this do so at their peril. Well done Phillishere.

Also, even if your lady friend is hitting a CUNT, there's no way you guys are paying tuition, rent, ramen, and keeping the lights on without loans. And thats totally fine for the short term while you're young, and itemize you're a hair away from the "median income" , that's no way to live long term

You're not getting it, dude. Even when you a "buy a smaller house/condo" you're still paying HOLYSHIT more than someone elsewhere for the same thing. Yes, location is a premium quality, but your salary is determined in part by the location you are able to actually get to.

And when you buy Dom you're paying "HOLYSHIT more" for the same amount of liquid.

Location is a premium, if your salary is determined by where you live then you're still getting the advantages of that salary over the lower one in the other area.

The marginal value of PP&E being greater than the marginal value of labor doesn't hold true for all cases, but similarly the argument "I put in the labor, therefore I deserve the wealth created" and the converse "If you don't put in the labor, you don't deserve the wealth created" don't hold true for most cases either.

The thing about our traditional capital side relationship is that it requires some level of ignorance from workers and general society about the way things work. There has to be a level of mystification about the people involved, as society must consider the powers that be to be somehow exceptional men to entrust them with such control over people's lives.

People need to accept their role in society or there is upheaval. I believe "everyone is a winner/special snowflake, and you can win if you just give it your best," is going to come back and haunt us.

The playing field has never been equal and will never up equal. Some people are born into good families, some people are cute, some people are intelligent, some people are will spoken, and some people are well written. We can not control our DNA, but we can control the choices we make each day. Those choices should be rewarded or punished. We should never lose sight of our own personal responsibilities just because a rich man (bank) has forgot his responsibilities.

No one is entitled to a profit or level of income just for being alive, there should be a correlation between your choices and your outcomes. If this relationship is perverted then everyone suffers.

No one is entitled to a profit or level of income just for being alive, there should be a correlation between your choices and your outcomes. If this relationship is perverted then everyone suffers.

And I think the language of entitlement is going to bite us in the ass. Between mass production, automation, computerization and globalization, we are well on our way to a world where the majority of humanity will be surplus to the requirements of their nation's economies.

And those people talk. If you do not provide some level of stability and comfort to those highly networked, idle masses, they will come and kill you. That's the other side of the Arab Spring.

If massive unemployment is here to stay, societies are either going to have to buy off, imprison or murder their surplus populations. Otherwise, the 21st century is going to be all revolution, all the time.

No one is entitled to a profit or level of income just for being alive, there should be a correlation between your choices and your outcomes. If this relationship is perverted then everyone suffers.

And I think the language of entitlement is going to bite us in the ass. Between mass production, automation, computerization and globalization, we are well on our way to a world where the majority of humanity will be surplus to the requirements of their nation's economies.

And those people talk. If you do not provide some level of stability and comfort to those highly networked, idlemasses, they will come and kill you. That's the other side of the Arab Spring.

If massive unemployment is here to stay, societies are either going to have to buy iff, imprison or murder their surplus populations. Otherwise, the 21st century is going to be all revolution, all the time.

George Orwell believed that War was a good way of getting rid of the surplus population. However war destroys wealth. I guess with all things there is an unknown tipping point? Presumably the tipping point is sometime before the surplus population comes to murder you.

Edit: Truth be told I am a little worried about the end of the war in Iraq, the cut backs in military spending and the troops come home to a poor labor market with little marketable skills besides being able to take orders and fight battles.

No one is entitled to a profit or level of income just for being alive, there should be a correlation between your choices and your outcomes. If this relationship is perverted then everyone suffers.

And I think the language of entitlement is going to bite us in the ass. Between mass production, automation, computerization and globalization, we are well on our way to a world where the majority of humanity will be surplus to the requirements of their nation's economies.

And those people talk. If you do not provide some level of stability and comfort to those highly networked, idle masses, they will come and kill you. That's the other side of the Arab Spring.

If massive unemployment is here to stay, societies are either going to have to buy off, imprison or murder their surplus populations. Otherwise, the 21st century is going to be all revolution, all the time.

What do you mean by the language of entitlement?

@Manning, How do you define surplus population? I think Phillishere was saying suprlus as in not needed, not surplus as in can't be taken care of.

Also, even if your lady friend is hitting a CUNT, there's no way you guys are paying tuition, rent, ramen, and keeping the lights on without loans. And thats totally fine for the short term while you're young, and itemize you're a hair away from the "median income" , that's no way to live long term

@Manning, How do you define surplus population? I think Phillishere was saying suprlus as in not needed, not surplus as in can't be taken care of.

I mean surplus labor in economic terms. AKA the unemployed/underemployed. The economy needs 9,000 widget makers and there are 10,000 professional widget makers.

10,000-9,000= 1,000 surplus widget makers.

What do we do with the bottom 10% of widget makers? You can pay them off, you can imprison, you can send them to war, you can murder them, you can train them in a new sector that your inventors have created or you can have a revolution.

@Manning, How do you define surplus population? I think Phillishere was saying suprlus as in not needed, not surplus as in can't be taken care of.

I mean surplus labor in economic terms. AKA the unemployed/underemployed. The economy needs 9,000 widget makers and there are 10,000 professional widget makers.

10,000-9,000= 1,000 surplus widget makers.

What do we do with the bottom 10% of widget makers? You can pay them off, you can imprison, you can send them to war, you can murder them, you can train them in a new sector that your inventors have created or you can have a revolution.

Did a miss any of the choices?

Ok gotcha. I for one do not believe war is a good solution to that problem.

@Manning, How do you define surplus population? I think Phillishere was saying suprlus as in not needed, not surplus as in can't be taken care of.

I mean surplus labor in economic terms. AKA the unemployed/underemployed. The economy needs 9,000 widget makers and there are 10,000 professional widget makers.

10,000-9,000= 1,000 surplus widget makers.

What do we do with the bottom 10% of widget makers? You can pay them off, you can imprison, you can send them to war, you can murder them, you can train them in a new sector that your inventors have created or you can have a revolution.

Did a miss any of the choices?

Ok gotcha. I for one do not believe war is a good solution to that problem.

I agree, but it an option. If it is a choice between revolution and WAR. Then for the people on top WAR looks to be pretty good.

@Manning, How do you define surplus population? I think Phillishere was saying suprlus as in not needed, not surplus as in can't be taken care of.

The idea that providing support for people who do not or cannot labor is a form of entitlement. I think a major failure of the modern left and right is a failure to grapple honestly about just what it means to run a society where the capacity exists to produce everything the economy needs and then some with less and less people every year.

The right is pushing entrepreneurism. That's a fantasy about how everyone can go into debt and run their own business selling computer repair, lawn care and designer sandals to each other. This at a time when internet companies are consildating the need for many of these services.

The left wants big business to give everybody jobs. There's a lot of slack to be found their - no one should be working 60 hour weeks in a time of massive unemployment - but there are fundamentally more people than needed jobs.

For the centrists, I also think there's a fallacy that all the people who have dropped out of the labor market will simply be quietly absorbed by the existing poor, like all the unemployed workers have done for years. That's being fucked up by the younger generation, who are showing signs that they are not going to shuffle off to poverty and depression like some laid off 80s steel mill worker.

@Manning, How do you define surplus population? I think Phillishere was saying suprlus as in not needed, not surplus as in can't be taken care of.

The idea that providing support for people who do not or cannot labor is a form of entitlement. I think a major failure of the modern left and right is a failure to grapple honestly about just what it means to run a society where the capacity exists to produce everything the economy needs and then some with less and less people every year.

The right is pushing entrepreneurism. That's a fantasy about how everyone can go into debt and run their own business selling computer repair, lawn care and designer sandals to each other. This at a time when internet companies are consildating the need for many of these services.

The left wants big business to give everybody jobs. There's a lot of slack to be found their - no one should be working 60 hour weeks in a time of massive unemployment - but there are fundamentally more people than needed jobs.

For the centrists, I also think there's a fallacy that all the people who have dropped out of the labor market will simply be quietly absorbed by the existing poor, like all the unemployed workers have done for years. That's being fucked up by the younger generation, who are showing signs that they are not going to shuffle off to poverty and depression like some laid off 80s steel mill worker.

Are you saying that society looks at welfare type things super negatively because of old held beliefs about hard work that were once valid? But we ultimately will need welfare type programs because there simply is not enough work to do and everyone working hard is not needed anymore?

Are you saying that society looks at welfare type things super negatively because of old held beliefs about hard work that were once valid? But we ultimately will need welfare type programs because there simply is not enough work to do and everyone working hard is not needed anymore?

[ecause of old held beliefs about hard work that were once valid? But we ultimately will need welfare type programs because there simply is not enough work to do and everyone working hard is not needed anymore?

[ecause of old held beliefs about hard work that were once valid? But we ultimately will need welfare type programs because there simply is not enough work to do and everyone working hard is not needed anymore?

Yup.

I am totally on the same page then.

I disagree. There might be an excess of widget builders, but the US economy has job openings. There is work to be done....

1) Manhattan has government programs providing residence assistance for incomes up to 70,000 dollars. Super long waiting lists and you have to disclose EVERYTHING about yourself, but it exists.

2) The Price of a Big Mac Extra Value Meal on average in America? $3.70. Price of same meal in Manhattan? $6.79. They also do not have anything on their dollar menu in Manhattan except for apple pies. The basic hamburger costs 1.39, as opposed to .79 in North Carolina.

The reason that Fast Food places pay 12-13 dollars an hour in the city is because they have to. While minimum wage isn't a living wage in most parts of the country, it is nigh fucking impossible to live on it here.

So yeah, 100,000 yr is middle class at best in the city. It does not mean that you need to be taxed differently than everyone else who earns that much acrossd the country, it just means that you are not fucking rich.

It is almost easier to think of the dollar in NYC as a different currency.

Fucked up human resources practices, lack of any sort of nationally recognized jobs database, phantom/scam openings, lack of mobility due to funds or existing family ties, lack of mobility due to the broken real estate market, specialized fields with genuine unfillable positions, etc. There are.a lot of reasons that there is a lot of slack between job ads and the unemployed numbers.

There's still a massive gulf between the number of ads - 3.2 million - and the numbers of unemployed - 14 million by the official government tally.

Fucked up human resources practices, lack of any sort of nationally recognized jobs database, phantom/scam openings, lack of mobility due to funds or existing family ties, lack of mobility due to the broken real estate market, specialized fields with genuine unfillable positions, etc. There are.a lot of reasons that there is a lot of slack between job ads and the unemployed numbers.

There's still a massive gulf between the number of ads - 3.2 million - and the numbers of unemployed - 14 million by the official government tally.

1) Manhattan has government programs providing residence assistance for incomes up to 70,000 dollars. Super long waiting lists and you have to disclose EVERYTHING about yourself, but it exists.

2) The Price of a Big Mac Extra Value Meal on average in America? $3.70. Price of same meal in Manhattan? $6.79. They also do not have anything on their dollar menu in Manhattan except for apple pies. The basic hamburger costs 1.39, as opposed to .79 in North Carolina.

The reason that Fast Food places pay 12-13 dollars an hour in the city is because they have to. While minimum wage isn't a living wage in most parts of the country, it is nigh fucking impossible to live on it here.

So yeah, 100,000 yr is middle class at best in the city. It does not mean that you need to be taxed differently than everyone else who earns that much acrossd the country, it just means that you are not fucking rich.

It is almost easier to think of the dollar in NYC as a different currency.

It's almost like there's a difference between a real and nominitive value.

1) Manhattan has government programs providing residence assistance for incomes up to 70,000 dollars. Super long waiting lists and you have to disclose EVERYTHING about yourself, but it exists.

2) The Price of a Big Mac Extra Value Meal on average in America? $3.70. Price of same meal in Manhattan? $6.79. They also do not have anything on their dollar menu in Manhattan except for apple pies. The basic hamburger costs 1.39, as opposed to .79 in North Carolina.

The reason that Fast Food places pay 12-13 dollars an hour in the city is because they have to. While minimum wage isn't a living wage in most parts of the country, it is nigh fucking impossible to live on it here.

So yeah, 100,000 yr is middle class at best in the city. It does not mean that you need to be taxed differently than everyone else who earns that much acrossd the country, it just means that you are not fucking rich.

It is almost easier to think of the dollar in NYC as a different currency.

It's almost like there's a difference between a real and nominitive value.

Yeah but try telling that to anyone who doesn't live there. They don't believe you because they don't have any idea, but they sure as shit tell you "oh it's not THAT expensive"